That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.

How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.

Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.

Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.

Point well taken. I admire big picture ideas, but personally prefer to take small steps first. IMHO, we need to avoid a P.T. Barnum mentality and report things as we see them...small scale then large scale.

I'm with you rfmwguy when leaping a tall building with a single bound you don't start at the top.

That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.

How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.

Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.

Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.

Point well taken. I admire big picture ideas, but personally prefer to take small steps first. IMHO, we need to avoid a P.T. Barnum mentality and report things as we see them...small scale then large scale.

How much smaller can I go?

Have designed a 2.45GHz version of the Flight Thruster. Will drive it with a 100W Rf and variable frequency Rf generator being controlled by a Raspberry Pi 2B computer, using 4 x 12v 6AH SLA batteries for power on a rotary test rig.

I agree with Shawyer, static testing is fraught with difficulties and so free to accelerate EMDrive testing is the way to go.

Shawyer achieved ~0.4N/kW in his Flight Thruster testing. I expect to be able to do that and maybe more. With a design Q of 100k and a Df of 0.925. Expect to see around 62mN or 6gf or 0.62N/kW of Force generated from the 100Ws of Rf.

In the Demonstrator EMDrive full video, the EMDrive had a 8.2g static load applied and generated 9.8g of Force for a net Force for rotation of 1.6g accelerating a 100kg mass.

The total rotary mass is expected to be around 20kg (20% of the SPR test above) with 6g of Force (3.75 more Force) pushing it. So expect it to accelerate much faster than the above SPR test run and reach 120 RPM very quickly.

« Last Edit: 07/16/2015 03:27 PM by TheTraveller »

Logged

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”Herman Melville, Moby Dick

That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.

How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.

Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.

Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.

Point well taken. I admire big picture ideas, but personally prefer to take small steps first. IMHO, we need to avoid a P.T. Barnum mentality and report things as we see them...small scale then large scale.

How much smaller can I go?

Have designed a 2.45GHz version of the Flight Thruster. Will drive it with a 100W Rf and variable frequency Rf generator being controlled by a Raspberry Pi 2B computer, using 4 x 12v 6AH SLA batteries for power on a rotary test rig.

I agree with Shawyer, static testing is fraught with difficulties and so free to accelerate EMDrive testing is the way to go.

Shawyer achieved ~0.4N/kW in his Flight Thruster testing. I expect to be able to do that and maybe more. With a design Q of 100k and a Df of 0.925. Expect to see around 62mN or 6gf or 0.62N/kW of Force generated from the 100Ws of Rf.

In the Demonstrator EMDrive full video, the EMDrive had a 8.2g static load applied and generated 9.8g of Force for a net Force for rotation of 1.6g accelerating a 100kg mass.

(...)

The total rotary mass is expected to be around 20kg (20% of the SPR test above) with 6g of Force (3.75 more Force) pushing it. So expect it to accelerate much faster than the above SPR test run and reach 120 RPM very quickly.

Mr T, I have lost count on the number of times this old video has been posted...friendly hint.

First step before you start running. No extravagant claims of your dreams of the future. Simple small first step before you leap. Running going round and round is all and that's not much to ask, is it?

And not RS's video, yours. There are too many uncertainties in this build and I just detailed out one of the air bearing.Shell

First step before you start running. No extravagant claims of your dreams of the future. Simple small first step before you leap. Running going round and round is all and that's not much to ask, is it?

And not RS's video, yours. There are too many uncertainties in this build and I just detailed out one of the air bearing.Shell

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

Mr T, I have lost count on the number of times this old video has been posted...friendly hint.

That is the just released full length video with audio. Not the old short, no audio video.

I posted it so people can see the acceleration rate achieved when 1.6g of Force accelerates a 100kg mass and can get an idea how much faster will be the acceleration rate with 6g of Force acceleration a 20kg mass.

« Last Edit: 07/16/2015 03:42 PM by TheTraveller »

Logged

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”Herman Melville, Moby Dick

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?

Logged

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”Herman Melville, Moby Dick

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?

Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?

Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?

I'm not attacking you or RS. I'm asking you to be a engineer first and answer like an engineer not a marketing dude. Question everything test all. This doesn't disprove it didn't work, it says I have some serious questions and If I don't ask and question, what do you think when you run into the E Musk head bangers?

I didn't become a builder or a Crazy Eddie kind of gal to supersede what took years to gain without questioning marketing hype from good scientific questioning.

I have successfully eliminated the RFI that was affecting my scale. It took better shielding of the waveguide, scale and most importantly the cables coming from the scale.

After eliminating RFI I have not seen any thrust signal, but at least I have a system that could identify a thrust signal.

Last night I finished assembling a 30W PA and moved the sample port to a new location where it has significantly less loading. I'm building an an RF remote control system to allow for maximum breeze isolation. The previous infrared remote control system required an arm to be extended into the chamber near an IR phototransistor. Over the next few days I will be running tests with this new configuration and I will post the results, even if they are null.

These tests are still utilizing various combinations of ABS and Al2O3 dielectrics. SrTiO3 powder has arrived but "some assembly" is required before I can use that.

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?

Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?

I'm not attacking you or RS. I'm asking you to be a engineer first and answer like an engineer not a marketing dude. Question everything test all. This doesn't disprove it didn't work, it says I have some serious questions and If I don't ask and question, what do you think when you run into the E Musk head bangers?

I didn't become a builder or a Crazy Eddie kind of gal to supersede what took years to gain without questioning marketing hype from good scientific questioning.

Shell

I started out as an EMDrive agnostic.

The more I studied, the more dots points in my head started to connect. When I worked on my spreadsheet model with RS, it all just fell into place. I could see how it worked as a motor engineer can see how a fuel injected, computer controlled complex engine works. I'm sure you can do that with your past projects.

There comes a time when you can live inside the device or you can't and will never truly understand it.

For me now this is like building a brush less DC motor for the 1st time. Something that only a few generations of engineers ago would have seemed impossible. But with a different approach to motor design, powerful PM magnets made to your design and switching semiconductors it becomes easy.

Once I publish the full and detailed plans, physically building a high performance and reliable EMDrive will be simple, quick and easy. Likewise the Raspberry Pi software will be downloadable in source form. So no hidden IP or industrial trade secrets. All out in the open. All replicable.

« Last Edit: 07/16/2015 04:59 PM by TheTraveller »

Logged

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”Herman Melville, Moby Dick

For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.

So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?

Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?

I'm not attacking you or RS. I'm asking you to be a engineer first and answer like an engineer not a marketing dude. Question everything test all. This doesn't disprove it didn't work, it says I have some serious questions and If I don't ask and question, what do you think when you run into the E Musk head bangers?

I didn't become a builder or a Crazy Eddie kind of gal to supersede what took years to gain without questioning marketing hype from good scientific questioning.

Shell

I started out as an EMDrive agnostic.

The more I studied, the more dots points in my head started to connect. When I worked on my spreadsheet model with RS, it all just fell into place. I could see how it worked as a motor engineer can see how a fuel injected, computer controlled complex engine works. I'm sure you can do that with your past projects.

There comes a time when you can live inside the device or you can't and will never truly understand it.

For me now this is like building a brush less DC motor for the 1st time. Something that only a few generations of engineers ago would have seemed impossible. But with a different approach to motor design, powerful PM magnets made to your design and switching semiconductors it becomes easy.

Once I publish the full and detailed plans, physically building a high performance and reliable EMDrive will be simple, quick and easy. Likewise the Raspberry Pi software will be downloadable in source form. So no hidden IP or industrial trade secrets. All out in the open. All replicable.

Thank you. I believe something will happen and hopefully good, we can hope. First off we will get the sorely needed data to step this up and present it to the world not as hype but as reality.

Interesting analysis about a "preferred coordinate system", conservation laws and correspondence principle.The author uses a expression of scattering of plane waves by gravity fields and stress the use of harmonic coordinates.

That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.

How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.

Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.

Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.

"Jumping the gun" may be very much like beauty - i.e. in the eye of the beholder. I am all for more and more extensive testing - which I think the number of DIYers plus labs are going to provide soon. As I have said before I think we need data on variations in size, angle, frequency, mode and modulation. However, looking at the data already reported from a number of sources gives one the feeling (technical term for "hunch") that there is some there there. Yes - each set of data could be 1) falsified 2) results of bad methodology or 3)hidden systemic error; but that when they all seem to see "something"?? Hmmm - That is starting to stack up on the side of the "something is there".

Jumping into full fledged public demos - or at least planning to once the unit is built and pushing or rotating or lifting - may seem to be jumping the gun but to me it just seems like planning ahead. Have a goal and move toward it.

Herman

Logged

EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.

How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.

Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.

Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.

"Jumping the gun" may be very much like beauty - i.e. in the eye of the beholder. I am all for more and more extensive testing - which I think the number of DIYers plus labs are going to provide soon. As I have said before I think we need data on variations in size, angle, frequency, mode and modulation. However, looking at the data already reported from a number of sources gives one the feeling (technical term for "hunch") that there is some there there. Yes - each set of data could be 1) falsified 2) results of bad methodology or 3)hidden systemic error; but that when they all seem to see "something"?? Hmmm - That is starting to stack up on the side of the "something is there".

Jumping into full fledged public demos - or at least planning to once the unit is built and pushing or rotating or lifting - may seem to be jumping the gun but to me it just seems like planning ahead. Have a goal and move toward it.

Herman

My goal is to look in the night sky and see a twinkling light again like I saw in 1957 on a cold October night and know it is a EMDrive. Good enough?

Experimental results from a Gravity-Impulse-Generator, a Wallace Dynamic Force Field Generator, and an EMDrive? Is this an episode of Punk'D? Are the attendees going to be surprised by a giant projection screen featuring Rick Astley?

Advanced propulsion is a noticeably small portion of this conference. It seems to be mainly a retooling of legacy products such as chemical/solid rocket and jet propulsion as you would suspect in a mature technology.

I've seen this before, when PCs and cellphones first came out. In a short while, those disruptive technologies outgrew the platforms that were hosting them. Perhaps the same can happen here. Trouble I've noticed is there are many fringe groups out there where this potential technology could get lost. Lets hope not.

(We had previously shown the stress on the Big Base for another mesh (files \\ ts03 \\s3-exx.csv, etc.) which had an even number of nodes in the direction of the diameter, while we now show it for a mesh having an odd number of nodes in the direction of the diameter (files end-cuts-July-14-2015\\ big-ex-t03.csv, etc.) -as one can see the difference due to the mesh is negligible).

The stress tensor σxx (*) component is obtained using Wolfram Mathematica ( http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ ) , post-processed from the transient Finite Difference (using Meep) solution for RF feed ON for an EM Drive of the geometry of @rfmwguy.

The stress component σxx has a negative magnitude, in both bases: it is compressive on both the Small and the Big base. Since it has negative magnitude on both bases it obviously points in different directions: at the big base it points in the direction from the small base to the big base while at the small base it points in the direction from the big base to the small base. From the interior to the surface in both cases. In other words, the electromagnetic field exerts a pressure on both surfaces.

The stress is not uniformly distributed through the big base (at least for the mode shape TM11 excited in this example) but instead it is distributed mainly in the circumferential outer periphery of the Big Base in two crescent shapes opposite each other, as it corresponds to mode TM11 (m=1 full-wave pattern in the circumferential direction and n=1 half-wave pattern in the diameter direction).

The stress at the small base looks completely different: it has a maximum at the center of the cross section, looking like a bell. This may be due to the proximity of the antenna to the small base. The antenna overwhelms the natural TM11 mode that would occur otherwise: there is no trace of the two crescent shapes at the small base.

It is also very interesting to point out that:

1) The maximum stress at the small base is much larger than the maximum stress at the big base

2) the time at which the maximum occurs at the (at the outer crescents of the) big base is phase-shifted with respect to the time at which the maximum stress occurs at the (center of the) small base.

3) We naturally expect that the stress tensor on the copper itself should sum up to zero in order to satisfy the momentum equilibrium equation implied by Maxwell's equation. We have not had an opportunity to integrate the stress to calculate the force at each base: the peak stress at the small base is significantly higher and it extends over the whole circumference, on the other hand the stress at the big base is of lower magnitude and it extends only in two crescent shapes at the outer periphery, but the diameter of the big base is greater than the diameter of the small base. Also, the time at which the maxima occurs is phase-shifted for one base with respect to the other.______________________________

(*) (where we denote by σxx= T11 the contravariant component of the tensor acting along the longitudinal direction "x" of the EM Drive, normal to the the plane yz having normal x, where direction "1" is "x")

(**) For the copper diamagnetism is assumed such that the magnetization M is assumed proportional to the applied magnetic field such that for free space it is assumed that M is zero in free space in the relationship

(***) The Stress calculations are for an Input Power of 43 Watts (similar to the value used by NASA in some of their runs). The Stress values are proportional to the Input Power, so for example, if the Input Power were 860 Watts, that means that the calculated values for Stress are 860 Watts/ 43 Watts = 20 times greater than shown in the plots. In other words, for 860 Watts InputPower, the values for Stress in the plots need to be multiplied by a factor of 20.